Metta Vishnu Vardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

O M R LAW FIRM, for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent; The Court made the following ORDER: \+a The Court made the followI-ng ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhI-ta, 2023 (for brevity {the BNSS') by the petI-tiOner for grantI-ng Of Pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No.167 of 2025 of Muttukur police station, sri potti sriramulu Nellore District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471,120(b), 109, 506(2), 386 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short lthe IPC').

#2. Facts, I'n brI|ef, Of the Case are that the de-facto complainant I'S the owner of F.S. transport. Accused No.1, who was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly, was involved in a" the illegal activities by using his designation. With strong support of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 to 9 planned to cheat the container transporters wI'th an intention to wrongful gain and started three associations in the month of August, 2021 and maI'ntained offices I'n the Vacant Place Of Nadavala Sekhar. They I-nCreaSed transport charges with their own interest and issued orders to the owners of the containers. ln contI'nuatiOn Of this Practice, On ll.04.2022, they issued orders to pay the increased charges on the name of KCPT transport assocI'atiOn. Accused Nos.2 to 9 cheated and collected huge amount from the owners and issued fake bills and extorted amount from other transport owners. while the drivers refused to pay the charges, the accused threatened them with dire consequences. They started illegal business and collapsed the system with an intention tQ gain huge money and degrade the honor of Krishnapatnam port. Hence, the case was registered. i-T± lis-`I c?#' I-VJ

#3. Heard learned counsel for the petitI'Oner and the learned Assistant 3 Publl-c Prosecutor. perused the record.

#4. SrI' O. Manohar Reddy, learned SenI-Or Counsel for the petitioner submI'tS that the petitioner has not commI'{ted any Offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner would abide by any condition to be imposed by this court.

#5. Per confra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor, opposed in granting of bail stating that the petitioner has I'ndulged in the offence highhandedly, there is prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner,I some more materI'al Witnesses have tO be examined; investigation is not completed; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he would not be available for the in'vestigation and he would escape from the clutches of law; and urged to dI'SmiSS the bail petition.

#6. As seen from the record, it appears that there are disputes in between two associations, one is, KrI'ShnaPatnam Transport Association and the other is, Krishnapatnam container Transport Owners Association. The latter one was old. The Krishnapatnam Transport Association, members three in number, were induced into Krishnapatnam container Transport Owners Association. The alleged transactions occurred in between 2021-2023. Even as Per the Case Of the prosecution, I-I iS the incident Originated in the year

#2021. F.I.R was lodged on o7.06.2025. The main accused/Accused No.1 was enlarged on regular bail by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of \'. =E= E= _E=< First class, NeIIore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.927 of 2025 in Crime No.167 of 2025 of Muthukuru police station on 10.07.2025.

#7. The object of the above mentioned two AssocI'atiOnS iS tO help the members I'n getting maximum rates to theI'r ServI'CeS aS Per Clause 7 (3) of the Memorandum of Association. It is the allegation of the prosecutI'On that the PetI'tiOner and Other accused Created theI-r OWn Check Post and there was no check post as per the directions of the Government or Transport Authorities.

#8. The allegation is that during the year 2021, when the trailers sent for transporting of the material from Krishnapatnam port to various places, they used to get the freight charges transferred from the companies to the account of Krishnapatnam logistics at ICICI Bank from thereafter excluding the commission they used to pay the freight charges to the owners of the trailers by excluding their commission by showing the fake bills in such a way, the Petitioner and Other accused earned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owners of the trailers who sent their trailers through his transport. However, the de-facto complainant asked the bills to show them to the owners, the accused and others threatened him with dire consequences and based on the said report, a case in crime No.167 of 2025 was lodged for the offences Punishable under Sections 409, 417, 465, 467, 471,120(b),109, 506(2), 386 r/w 34 of {the lPCJ. The petitioner I'S even aS Per the aVermen{s of the report lodged by the de-facto complainant, Mandal convener of ysRCP party Muthukur MandaI. He is a politI'Cal Party leader. /O c->fzzzrT,

#9. As observed, though the alleged incident occurred about more than two : years, the de-facto complainant or any person, who is aggrieved by the deeds, or rather misdeeds of the petitioner or any accused, ought to have reported the same to the police at relevant point of time. The prime allegation is that the Petitioner and Other accused extorted freight Charges from the lorry OWnerS and misappropriated them. There is delay of more than two years in lodging the F.I.R. The reason assigned is that, at that time the petitioner and other accused were in politically powerful position, therefore, the de-facto complainant and the other victims could not venture to lodge report with the polio.e.

#10. In this context, l't is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, at para Nos.27, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 (iv) it is held as under: tL27. To some extent, the petitioners could be said to have made out a PriT_.a.faCie Case Of POlitiCal bias or mala tides but that by itself is not suffi.cien_i to grant anticipatory bail overlooking the other prima facie materi9lS On record. Political vendetta or bias if any is one of-the relevant c9nSiqPratiOnS While considering the plea of anticipatory bail. The courts sh.oulq. Peep one tPing in mind, more particularly, while ci>nsidering the plea of.enticipatory bail that when two groups of rivial political parties -are a{ war which m_ay ultimately lead to litigations, more particularly, criminal Prosecutions there iS bound tO be some element Of POlitiCal bias Or Vendetta ipvolyed in the same. However, political vendetta by itself is not sufficient for the gr9nt Of antiCiPatOry bail. The courts should not`just look into the aspect of political vendetta and ignore the other materials on record constit.uting a_prima facie case as alleged by the state. lt is only when the court. is convinced more than prima facie that the 6Ilegations are frivolous en_d baseless, that the court may bring into the element of poi`itical vendetta irtp. c_o.nsigeraljon_for the purpose of considering the plea of anticipatory bail.__The frivolity in the entire case that the court may look into shc; uld die attributed to political bias or vendetta. 45. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be singled out and construed devoid of its context. while it is permissible for the courts to examine the statements recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the Purpose Of ascertaining Whether a Prima-faCie Case has been made Out 12025SCCOnlineSC 1157 a_g_a-last the,a?cus9d andthe_ nature Or graV-Ity Of the allegations, the same applies pnly insofar as such police stitemints are of wiitness6S-a;i--;;i accused persons. fp-_I I_ Eptp,.Indrpsh Kuplar (SuPra) and Sallim Khan (supra) have held that, in d_eci. Ping .tPp dyestion of grant of bail, it is the sta[err; en{s drf-;it;i-:s y.nPer_Sec.tipn .1_6!. of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhi;6--ir:i:s i.fi5sJ_C_o_uft_I_e!dl t^hJat ,e,yen _the_ _POliCe Statements Of the accused--ber±i;n u~n_!s,r _S|e_c!i|p_I._1_P_1 _of the Cr.P..C...must also be looked into at the :i;a-e-df grant of anticipatory or regular bail. 4_7. _ _ TPis is because a statement of an accused under section 161 of the ?:+F._C_ ~sta.n|d_: _o_! _a_ ldiffe!ent footing frpm a police statement of any-grii; iiv w_itn_es_s. _Statements of an accused person under section 1'61--6`;--{i;e Cr.P_.C. Py virtue of ordinarily being in the form of either an admissi;; ;;-a c_o.:f_e_s.si_o_n _?_3?Po,i b,e I.ooked ..into qua apother co-accused, as to -sir; ontAher!!S_e_yO^u^ld_ ,bP to_ig.n.ore th? ?ubst_aptive p!ovisions of Section(s) -ii, 21,. ?5 and 26 of the Evidence Act and the wall settled cannons a; i=ir -df evidence. F!owever, the aforesaid does not apply, wilhere the statement i;f an ac.cu.Se.q under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C is exculpatory in nature, which we shall discuss later. 5_0. .. Eypp yPere_ th_e_police statement of an accused person under Sectipn I 61 ?f the_Cr.P.C _is neither an admission nor a confdssion, i.e., it is excul.patory in nature and not inculpatory, such statements can be I;oked into by tPe courts only for the limited purbose of culling out the stanc6-i;firria accused_person qua the allegations. An exculpatory police statement of an accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C which at the same time impI.icatps anotPe_r co- accused, cannot be relied upon, merely because such s!ater?nt i.s rot hit. Py the safeguards and rigours that apply in respect of inculpatory statements in the form of an admissiJnS or confessions under the Evidence Act. The fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence is that a statement of one accused person cannot be used against another co-accused person. The limited exception to this aforesaid g?ne.ral _prin.ciple is inculpatory confessions, where the accused person in his ?pnfessional stateme_pt not only admits his own guilt but also -implicates anot.her pc)-ac_c:us_ed. The rationale behind this limited exceition as explained_ i_n. Bhuboni Sahu (supra), is that an admission by air accused Pe.rS.Pn Of his OW_n .g.uilt afferds _some sort of credibility or sanclion in support of the truth of his confession against others as-well as himself.- An exculpatpry statement is an affront to the aforesaid principle. Thus, an exculpatory statement of an `accused person under sectibn 161 of the

9.r.P.P. can o_n!y be looked_ into for the limited purpose of either cull-Ing Out i.Pe stance ?i .i_h.p accused .pe_rson qua the allegations or for contradicting the accused, if the accused chooses to be examined as a witness in terni:s of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. However, such exculpatory statement insofar as it` implicates another co-accused person can in no manner be relied uppn .by the cc!urts as aga_irI_St Such CO-accused aS Such Statements by their n?tu!e cenn.ot be _tested by cross-examination if such accused i,erson decI.ipes to be a vyitness in the trial in terms of section 315 of the 6r.p.c., a_n_d beca_use such exculpatory statement has no credibility. 53. ,_ . FrpT the above exposition Of law, the following emerges: (iv) Where such police statement of an accused i-s confessional Slate.ment, the rigour Of Section(s) 25 and 26 respectively will apply with all its _vigour.`_A confessional statement of an accused will only be adrhissible if it is not hit by Section(s) 24 or 25 respectively and is- in tune 'with the Provisions Of Section(s) 26, 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act respectively. In other words, a police statement of an accused which is in the form of a :: confession is per se inadmissible and no reliance whatsoever can be PIacpd on .such stetements either at the stage of bail or during trial. since s^uch,. copt_essipnaI_s_tetements are render; ed inadmissible -by virtue of Sect.i_on 25 of the Evidence Act, the provision of Section 30 wo'uld be of no avail, and no reliance can be placed on such confessional statement of an accused to implicate another co-accused." ll. Having seen the entire material on record, Accused No.3 gave an incriminating statement not only against him but also agaI-nSt the Present Petitioner Who iS Shown aS Accused No.3. Albel-I politI'Cal bias Or malafI'deS by itself would not suffice to grant anticipatory bail by overlooking other pr,-ma fac,-e materI-al on record, having seen the entire material on record, there l's a delay of more than two and half years in approaching the police for regl'stration of a crime. Indeed, there is a dispute in between two societies. They had alternatl've better remedy under section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. After grievance, the contention of the complainant is expected though he could not venture to lodge a report wl-th theJPOliCe, he could have approached a competent principal District Judge who is the designating Court for sorting out the issues of societies under section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Kr,-shna Mohan Rec'c/y supra, Poll-tiCal bias is one of the relevant considerations while considering the plea of anticipatory bail. On a careful perusal of the entire case dairy, as of now, except the confession of co-accused/Accused No.3, there is no substantial materI-al available, rather established by the investigatin`g officer against the petitioner/Accused No.2. \= -=€ I-.---` #--r-

#12. The Hon'bleApex Court in p. Kr,-shna Mohan Rec/dysapra, held that a confessing statement of co-accused per se inadmissl'ble and no relevance whatsoever can be placed on such statement at the stage of bail or through bail inasmuch as such confession statements are rendered by virtue of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (for short fthe Act'). The provisI-On of sectI-On 30 of fthe ActJ would be of no avail, and no relI-anCe Can be placed on such a statement as a cause of actI-On tO I-mPliCate another co-accused. Further, more importantly, it is to be pointed out that the petitI'Oner iS not Partner I'n Krishnapatnam Logistics as seen from the partnershI'P deed dated

26.07.2024, of course, Krishnapatnam Logistics is with four partners.

#13. ConsI-dering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged role placed by the petitioner, the nature of allegations levelled against him, thI-S Court deems it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, however, with following stringent conditions: a) In the event of arrest of the petI-tI'Oner, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh, only), with two sureties each for the like sum each to the sa{isfactI'On Of the arresting police officials; b) The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required; c) The pe{itI-Oner Shall not cause any threat, inducement or promise to the prosecution wI'tneSSeS,- d) The petitioner shall appear before the statI'On House Officer concerned once in a week i.e., on every saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 05.gP p.m., till filing of the charge sheet. . ._..,} I .`+. ct- e) The petitioner shall not leave the district limits without the express permission from the Station House Officer concerned. f) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer. lf he claims that he does not have a passport, he shall submit an affidavit to that effect to the Investigating Officer.

#14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.SRl ASSiSTAN I;::: iE`-;,i?I,i_i:i!:aRAJU TFRAR sEC"ON OFFICER To]

#1. The Station House Officer, Muthukur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.

#2. One CC to Sri. O M R LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC]

#3. Two cos to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. [OUT]

#4. One spare copy JSS HIGH COURT DR.YLR, J DATED:14/07/2025 BAIL ORDER CRLP.No.6412 of 2025 I:_:I-` ALLOWED